the fame opinion. Indeed, I think, it has a great appearance of probability. It is much more likely, than the tradition, or interpretation in Epiphanius, that (m) it was Nathanael. The fame Bafnage fays that if Nathanael had been the other, St. Luke would have named him. St. Mark ch. xvi. 12. 13. has a like account, but briefer, of two, to whom Chrift appeared, as they were walking into the countrey. He does not name either of them. Grotius (n) allows, that Mark's and Luke's histories are of the fame perfons. Both the Evangelifts speak of these as two of them. They were not of the Twelve, but yet they were of their companie, fuch as had been with Jefus: as is allowed by (0) Grotius, and ) Beza. Nevertheless they fay, that (q) Luke is not the other. He is excluded, as they fay, by the tenour of his introductions both to his Gofpel, and the Acts. Their reafonings will be confidered presently. However, fuppofing Luke to be the perfon here intended, I do not think, that he is thereby fhewn to be one of the Seventy. Cleophas and the other were difciples of Chrift, and eye-witnesses. But it does not therefore follow, that they were of the number of the Seventy. We proceed. Among the Salutations in the epiftle to the Romans are these. ch. xvi. 20. Timothie my work-fellow, and Lucius, and Fafon, and Sofipater, my kinfmen, falute you. All thefe were Jewith believers, and the three laft mentioned, as it feems, were the Apoftle's relations. That by Lucius fome fuppofed the Evangelift Luke to be intended, we have been informed by fo ancient a writer as Origen. And it is very likely, that St. Luke's name was writ differently: Lucas, Lucius, and LNcanus. There is the more reafon to think, that the Evangelift is here intended, because he must have been with the Apostle at the time of writing the epiftle to the Romans. Says Mr. Tillemont: "Many (r) "believe, that St. Luke is he, whom St. Paul in his epiftle to the Romans "calls Homen diffimulat fuum. Si de grege Apoftolorum fuiflent, aut virorum multa laude in Evangelio celebratorum, uti Nathanael, quod Epiphanio vifum, iterum atque iterum dicemus, tam ejus quam Cleopa nomen fœneraffet. Ann33. num. CL. (m) See vol. viii. p. 316. () Quare immerito Enthymius hic aliam putat hiftoriam indicari, quanz eam, quæ a Luca copiofe defcribitur. Grot. ad Marc. xvi, 12. (α) . . δυσὶν ἐκ αυτῶν] τῶν μετὰ ἰησὲ γενομένων, ut fupra dixit ver. Ia Nam hoc nomine etiam alii extra xii. cenfentur, præcipue qui de numero erant illorum feptuaginta. Grot. ad Marc. xvi. 11. (p) Ex iis, i T, nempe difcipulis, non autem ex Apoftolis. Aliorum enim præter Apoftolos mentio facta fuit præcedente verfu 9. Bez. in Luc xxiv. 13. (q) Alterum fuiffe hunc noftrum Lucam, quidam ex veteribus arbitrantur, quorum opinio refellitur ex præfatione Actis Apoftolorum præpofita. Bez. ad Luc. xxiv. 18. Dua ex illis, nempe eorum, quos mado hay, ceterorum nomine defignarat, e fectatoribus Chrifti. Probabiliter fentiunt Veteres, fuiffe hos de numero LXX... Nomen alterius infra exprimit Lucas, Cleopam vocans. Alterum ipfum Lucam multi putârunt, quos fatis ipfe refellit in Evangelii anteloquio, ab occulatis teftibus fe feparans. Groad Luc. xxiv. 13. (r) Mem. Ee. Tom. 2. S. Luc. "calls Lucius, making his name a little more Latin. And it is the more "likely, inasmuch as the Acts affure us, that St. Luke was then with St. "Paul. If that be fo, he was related to this Apoftle." Grotius, who fuppofed our Evangelift to have been of Antioch, taking notice of the above-mentioned obfervation of Origen, fays, that (s) Lucius, in Rom. xvi. is the fame, as Lucius of Cyrene, mentioned Acts xiii. I. Fabricius (t) esteemed it fomewhat probable, that Lucius is the Evangelist. Dr. Heumann fuppofes (u) this Lucius to be St. Luke, and the fame as Lucius of Cyrene, whom (x) he computes to be one of the seventy Disciples, as before seen. Mr. Bafnage likewife argues very strongly, that (y) Lucius is our Evangelist. Indeed this opinion cannot be well said to be deftitute of probability: fince there is a good deal of reason to think, that Luke was in the Apoftle's companie, when he wrote the epiftle to the Romans. And if Lucius be not he, no mention is made of him. Which is very unlikely. If this be our Evangelift, we hence learn, that he was a Jew, and related to the Apoftle. And if this be Lucius of Cyrene, we know his character, and, in part, his hiftorie, from Acts xi. 19.. 21. and xiii. 1. . . 4. He was an early Jewish believer after Chrift's afcenfion, and toge ther with others was very ferviceable in early preaching the gospel to Jews and Gentils out of Judea. And, once more, if the other, who accompanied (s) Docet nos Origenes, in annotationibus epiftola ad Romanos, fuiffe qui crederent Lucium eum, qui in eadem epiftola nominatur. xvi. 21. effe hunc ipfum Lucam, et Lucium dici flexione Romana, Lucam Græca. Ego Lucium illum, cujus ibi meminit Paulus, puto non alium effe a Cyrenenfi, quem nofter hic nominat Actor. xiii. i. Grot. Praf. ad Evang. S. Luc. (t) Fuerunt enim jam olim, qui tefte Origene Lucam eundem putârunt cum Lucio, quem Paulus inter ouyye; fuos refert Rom. xvi. 21. Neque verifimilitudine deftituitur hæc fententia. Fab. Bib. Gr. ubi fupra. p. 132. (u) Lucas non eft verum, id eft, pure expreffum nomen Evangelifta, fed vel Lucanus, (quem in modum ut ex Silvanus factum eft Silas) vel Lucius. Ac perverifimile eft, Evangeliftam noftrum effe Lucium illum Cyrenæum, cujus fit mentio Act. xiii. 1. Quem nec diverfum effe credo ab illo Lucio, quem Paulus Rom. xvi. 21. vocat cognatum fuum, fimulque teftatur, eum in fuo comitatu fuiffe. Heuman. Ep. Mifc. T. 2. p. 519. (x) Jure igitur credimus, et hos quatuor [Act. xiii. 1.] fuiffe e feptuaginta illorum difcipulorum numero. Jam inter hos fi Lucius non eft alius quam Lucas Evangelifta, merito et Lucam noftrum recenfemus inter feptua ginta illos difcipulos. Diff. de LXX. Chrifti Legat. § xx. p. 149. (y) Lucam Evangeliftam Paulo confanguineum fuiffe verifimilitudinis multum habet. Lucium fane, cujus nomine Romanos falutat Apoftolus, ex ipfius cognatis unus erat. Sunt vero non pertenues conjecturæ, quibus adducamur ad exiftimandum unum eundemque virum cum Luca Lucium effe. Quæ antiqua fane fententia fuit, cujus meminit Origenes in Rom. xvi. . . . Silam quidem Paulus ipfe Silvanum vocat. Aderat etiam Paulo comes Lucas, cum miffa eft ad Romanos epiftola, quem infalutatos præteriiffe, prorfus fit incredible: quod tamen factum fuiffèt, fi Lucius eft a Luca diverfus. Bafn. ann, 60. n. xxxiii. 5 companied Cleophas in the way to Emmaus, be was a difciple and eye-witneffe of Jefus Chrift. the Seventy. Luke the Evangelift, he Now we come to confider the objection of Beza, Grotius, and divers others who have fuppofed, that St. Luke, in the introduction to his Gofpel, excludes himself from the number of eye-witneffes. But though this has been a difficulty with many, there have been of late divers learned men, remarkable for inquifitiveneffe, and good judgement, who are not much moved by it. One of them is Dr. Whitby, in his preface to St. Luke's Gofpel, already taken notice of by us. Another (z) Fabricius, a third (a) Bafnage, the fourth Heumann: who in his forecited Dif fertation obferves, that (6) St. Luke's introduction imports no more, than that he was not an eye-witneífe from the beginning, nor an Apostle. But he may have been for fome while a follower of Chrift very confiftently with what he there writes. And, probably, he was fo. But he very fitly puts the credit and authority of his hiftorie upon the teftimonie of the Apostles. I fhall likewife tranfcribe below a paffage of Petavius (c) from his Animad (z) Neque obftat porro, quod Lucas affirmat, fe ea fcribere, quæ acceperit ab illis, qui fuiffent ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αυτόπται. Nam non de omnibus Lxx dici hoc poterat, quod A&t. i. 21. et feq. ad Apoftolum requiritur. Bib. Gr. T. 3 p. 133. (a) Ann. 60. num. xxviii. (b) Repugnare quidem videri poffit ipfe Lucas cap. i. 2. fcribens, se quæ tradat accepiffe α τοῖς ἀπ' ἀρχῆς αυτόπταις. Verum non fe negat fuiffe αυτόπτων, qui negat, fe durónny an ex fuiffe. Concedimus itaque, non ab initio ftatim, ati Apoftolos, quos inngiras r óys appellat, interfuiffe rebus a Chrifto geftis Lucam. Sed aliquo jam tempore functo fuo munere Meffiæ fe applicuiffe Lucam, et poftea femper in ejus comitatu fuiffe, quo minus credamus, hoc ipfius teftimonium minime impedit. Accedit, quod modeftiæ erat, Apoftolorum potius, quam fuum ipfius teftimonium commendare, jubereque lectores, si forte fibi credituri fint ægrius, fidem habere Apoftolis, teftibus nulli obnoxiis exceptioni. Heum. Diff. ib. num. xx. (c) Quod Lucas & difcipulorum numero fuerit, afferit et Dorotheus in Synopfi... Sed contra fentiunt plerique, et id ex ipfis Lucæ verbis colligunt, cum ait: 'Edce xpis.. Sed tantum abeft, ut hæc difcipulum Chrifti fuifle, ac non pleraque, cum ab eo gererentur, oculis ufurpaffe negent, ut contrarium potius hinc elici poffit. Verbum enim açao nonnunquam ad eam notitiam refertur, quæ oculis ipfis, ac propria intelligentia comparatur, non aliorum fermonibus. Ut cum Demofthenes ἐν τῷ περὶ παραπρεσβείας, de Αr chine, cujus in legatione comes fuerat, fic loquitur: Kai & TÚTH @omgituata είδώς, και παρακολουθηκὼς ἅπασι κατηγορώ. Sic igitur Lucas ἄνωθεν παρηκολο truínas arão angibus dicitur, hoc eft, comperta, explorataque, ac fpectata etiam, habuiffe. Ac videri poteft, et nonnulla hæc antithefis effe, ut cum fuperiore verfu dixerit: Quemadmodum multi res a Chrifto geftas fcribere aggreffi funt, καθώς παρέθεσαν ἡμῖν ἐν ἀπ ̓ ἀρχῆς, ftatim fubjiciat : Έδοξε καμοι παρηκολυθηκότι, hoc eft, qui non, ut illi ix wagadóstw;, fed ex propria id fcientia compererim. Ceterum tametfi ad eum fenfum accommodari Lucæ verba nihil prohibet, non idcirco tamen Chrifti difcipulum fuiffe certo pronunciare aufim: cum huic adverfari fententiæ longe plures Patres intelligam. Sed ifta commemoravi, ut ne Luce ipfi de fe teftanti refragari quifquam Epiphanium arbitretur. Petav. Animadu. in Epiphan. Her. 11. num. xi, p. 89. 9c. Animadverfions upon Epiphanius, though it be fomewhat long. I do it the rather, because he is an older author than any of thofe, hitherto cited in behalf of this interpretation. He is confidering what Epiphanius fays of Luke's being one of Chrift's feventy difciples. The fum of what he advanceth is to this purpose: "He dares not affirm, that Luke "was a difciple of Chrift, becaufe many of the Fathers have thought "otherwise. But he fays, there is nothing in St. Luke's introduction to "induce us to think, he was not a difciple of Chrift, or that he had not "feen a large part of the things related by him: but rather the contrarie. "And he was willing to fhew, that Epiphanius is not contradicted by St. • Luke himself." 7. St. Luke was for a good while a conftant companion of St. Paul. But he was also acquainted with other Apostles. 66 Tertullian, and Chryfoftom, as we have feen, call St. Paul Luke's Mafter. But they need not be understood to intend, that Luke learned nothing from other Apoftles. So Irenaeus faid: “ Luke, the companion of "Paul, put down in a book the Gospel that had been preached by Paul.” But in another place he fays: "That (*) Luke was a fellow-laborer of "the Apostles, especially, of Paul." And in another place he calls Luke (**) a follower and difciple of the Apofties." And Eufebius faid Luke was for the moft part a companion of Paul, but had alfo more "than a flight acquaintance with the other Apofiles." And Jerome fays: "It was fuppofed, that Luke did not learn his Gospel from the Apoftle "Paul only, who had not converfed with the Lord in the flesh, but also "from other Apoftles. Which alfo he acknowledgeth at the begining "of his volume, faying: Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses of the word." 66 That must be right, I think, because it is agreeable to the writer's own words in the introduction to his work. I always confider Paul as an eye-witnee. But he was not an eye-witneffe from the begining: nor a minifter of the word, from the begining. He must have had a distinct knowledge of all things concerning the Lord Jefus. Christianity, as has been often, and juftly faid, is founded in facts. In order to preach it, Paul must have had a knowledge of Chrift's life, preaching, miracles, death, refurrection, and afcenfion. As he was not inftructed by other Apostles in the doctrine preached by him, he must have had it from revelation. And I fuppofe, that a man, who, like Luke, often heard Paul preach, might have compofed a Gofpel, or hiftorie of Jefus Chrift from Paul's fermons, preached in divers places, and to men of all characters. And the ancients feem to have fuppofed, that Luke had thereby great affiftances for compofing his Gofpel. Which I do not deny. Neverthelefs it feems fairly to be concluded from his own introduction, that he had confulted others alfo. It might not be amifs, if I had room for fuch obfervations, to compare St. Luke's Gofpel and the hiftorical parts of St. Paul's Epiftles, and (*) Quoniam non folum profequutor, fed et cooperarius fuerit Apoftolorum, maxime autem Pauli. Iren, l. 3. c. 14. n. 1. p. 201. b. (**) Lucas autem fectator et difcipulus Apoftolorum. Ibid. cap. x. [al, xi.] in p. 189. X. and alfo of his difcourfes recorded by Luke himself in the book of the Acts. It is reasonable to think, that wherever any difciples of Jefus preached the Chriftian Religion, they gave an account of the things concerning Chrift. Wherever the Apoftles, or others, preached, in order to induce faith in Jefus and his doctrine, their firft difcourfes muft have been historical. The reafon of the thing leads us to this. And we are affured of it from their difcourfes, of which we have an account. We perceive this in the difcourfes of St. Peter at Jerusalem. Acts ii. 22. ... 36. iii. 12. . . 26. iv. 10. and at the house of Cornelius in Cefarea, x. 34. 43. from Paul's difcourfes in the fynagogue at Antioch in Pifidia. Ch. xiii. 23... 38. at Athens, xvii. 31. at Corinth, xix. 8. before the Governor Feftus, and King Agrippa, ch. xxvi. and at Rome: though then many years had paffed, fince the afcenfion of Chrift, and fince his religion had begun to be preached, and propagated in the world. St. Luke's general account of Paul there is thus: And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired houfe, and received all that came in unto him, preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jefus Chrift. xxviii. 30. 31. "That is, fays (d) Grotius, his miracles, "doctrine, death, refurrection, and the miffion of the Spirit: by which things men were affured, that the heavenly kingdom was fet up." And this may have been the occafion of the frequent ufe of thofe expreffions, preaching Christ, and preaching Jefus Chrift, as equivalent to preaching the Christian Religion, or the doctrine of the Gospel, I must own, that in the furvey of St. Luke's Gofpel, and St. Paul's difcourfes and epiftles, I have not difcerned any fuch fpecial agreement, as to be induced to think, that one of them had copied the other. St. Paul fays, at Antioch in Pifidia, Acts xiii. 23. Of this man's feed has God raifed unto Ifrael a Saviour, Jesus. And 2 Tim. ii. S. Remember, that Jefus Chrift, of the feed of David, was raised from the dead, according to my gospel. These things are agreeable to St. Luke's Gofpel. But they are alfo in St. Matthew's. And must have been taught by all the Apofles, and all preachers of the gospel. Acts xx. 35. And to remember the words of the Lord Jefus, how he faid: It is more bleed to give, than to receive. That faying of our Lord is not recorded by St. Luke in his Gofpel, nor by any other of the Evangelifts. 1 Cor. xv. 5. 7. And that he was feen of Cephas, then of the Twelve. After that, he was feen of above five hundred brethren at once... After that he was feen of James, then of all the Apofles. St. Luke's account of our Saviour's appearances after his refurrection are in ch. xxiv. and Acts i. 1... 12. And if they are obferved, I fuppofe, that no remarkable agreement between Paul and Luke will be difcerned, but rather the contrarie. The five hundred brethren, mentioned by St. Paul, probably, faw Jefus in Galilee: where, as in Matth. xxvi. 32. xxviii. 7. and Mark xvi. 7. he appointed to meet the difciples. But of this there is nothing in St. Luke. And all our Saviour's appearances to the difciples, mentioned (d) Miracula ejus, et præcepta, et mortem, et refurrectionem, et miffionem Spiritus Sancti. Per que certi fiebant homines de regno illo cœlesti.. Grot. ad A&t. xxviii. 31. VOL. II. G |
